The point is to demonstrate the obvious repercussions of truly trying on the belief "free will does not exist/not a meaningful thing" on something even so commonplace as an online conversation. If there is no free will, there is no point in having a conversation. People can't have opinions or be convinced, they can't decide, they have no agency. The whole language of rational conversation falls down like a house of cards.

It is an argument ad absurdum that is meant to demonstrate how naive it is to try to prove that free will does not exist (naive and disingenuine: "prove to <someone>" already implies <someone> has a free will to ultimately agree or disagree with the presented proof).

> If there is no free will, there is no point in having a conversation

How does this follow? Do you believe that rocks have free will? Why do they choose to be attracted to other rocks?

> People can't have opinions or be convinced, they can't decide, they have no agency. The whole language of rational conversation falls down like a house of cards.

How does an opinion rely on “free will”?

> has a free will to ultimately agree or disagree with the presented proof).

One agrees or disagrees on the basis of mental states, there is no “free will” to agree or disagree.

> Do you believe that rocks have free will? Why do they choose to be attracted to other rocks?

Having a conversation is like attracting rocks? What? Those things have 0.001% in common...

Simple question. Why do rocks choose to attract each other?

> Having a conversation is like attracting rocks? What? Those things have 0.001% in common...

“Free will” and “having a conversation” have 0 in common so....

> Why do rocks choose to attract each other?

This is exactly what they don't do - they don't choose. Rocks attract each other all the time, every time, with fixed force. When people talk, they routinely agree/disagree, convinced/unconvinced, they choose different topics, they choose words, they choose what they think. You are demonstrating the exactly how those two things are nothing alike.

So you connect free will to making a choice? On what basis does a person with free will make choices?

> If there is no free will, there is no point in having a conversation.

That doesn’t follow logically.

Honestly I’m trying think of what more to write about that, but it seems like a total non-sequitur. People post on HN for lots of reasons , but “demonstrating free will” is not one of them AFAIK.

> Honestly I’m trying think of what more to write about that, but it seems like a total non-sequitur.

Maybe you are just not aware of what you really deeply believe about it?

> but “demonstrating free will” is not one of them AFAIK.

Free will is not the main reason for posting. But it is one of prerequisites for assuming it is a meaningful activity.

No, I think that is only true if you cling to naïve assumptions about what free will is. The fact that we do things for reasons (deterministic!) is precisely what gives our actions meaning. If we only did things because of a roll of the dice, that would take away meaning.

> No, I think that is only true if you cling to naïve assumptions about what free will is

Then explain what is "wrong" about it. When you write "I don't know what to write about it but it's wrong" indicates an ideological conviction which is not based on true developed thought process behind it.

Like explain for example: if you have no free will, why should I communicate with you? Why would that be interesting to me? Like talking to a wristwatch? It's certainly very complicated as well, but I have no reason to communicate with it as if it was my peer.

>If we only did things because of a roll of the dice

Who said anything about rolling a dice?

There is no point, it was a causal chain that made it inevitable for me to write the above comment

Trolling is not appreciated on HN.

You intervened in a subthread you weren't involved in, to rudely ask "what's my point", failed to understand the exchange that followed, and continued by throwing the "rulebook" at me.

Is being a spiteful busybody appreciated on HN?

> You intervened in a subthread you weren't involved in

Thats a loaded way to phrase “you posted a reply on hacker news”

If the posted reply takes the form of meddling in a discussion you weren't involved to question why one party dared to write what they wrote and scold them, it's somewhat apt though.

Doubly so if others like Erlich_Bachman, who was involved in the subtread earlier, have already answered to the parent what was meant...

your insistence that opinions imply “free will” is an interesting position, but your attempts to invoke it as a frame for your replies without bothering to substantiate it on the merits does pattern-match to common troll behavior. Consequently there’s nothing wrong with someone joining the discussion to address this.

> Doubly so if others like Erlich_Bachman, who was involved in the subtread earlier, have already answered to the parent what was meant...

I’ve read and responded to Erlich_Bachman, who was kind enough to offer some remarks in support of his position. We have yet to understand why you and others believe that opinions require “free will.”